My friend Mobius drew me into a discussion on Facebook of what an awful thing for Israel a McCain victory would be, and I posted a link to this post, where I addressed certain aspects of that issue a little while ago. He weighed in big time in the comments, and while this is mostly inside baseball if you’re not Jewish, I am putting so much work into responding that I thought it would be worthwhile to elevate this into a post.
As to the first, it wasn’t that long ago that, when the Iraq War was widely “recognized” by smart opinion as a dumb, losing proposition, it was Israel’s fault that it happened in the first place — the “neocons” were handmaidens for the Zionists. Now winning it was dumb, because it’s bad for Israel! Not quite blame the Jews, but an interesting variation.
This is not an argument. This is playing games. I can point to plenty of sources, such as the CATO Institute, that in the run up to the war identified the invasion of Iraq as bad policy, stam, not bad policy because it was “a war for Israel.”
So what? Libertarians don’t prove (or do) anything. Ever. This trope can, however, be found in virtually every camp that is hostile to “neocons.” As Dore Gold writes:
On the liberal side, Chris Matthews, who hosts MSNBC’s Hardball, echoed Buchanan when he spoke about “conservative people out there, some of them Jewish…who believe that if we don’t fight Iraq, Israel will be in danger.” Likewise, former Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart warned of “ideologues” who were not able to distinguish between their loyalty “to their original homelands” and loyalty “to America and its national interests. . . Another variation on the Israel theme is the assertion made by Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times columnist, that General Zinni heard from administration officials that the Iraq War would advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process because “the road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad.” According to this thesis, the Iraq War would chiefly help Israel’s drive to obtain peace on reasonable terms – still a benefit to Israel. “
How about this:
The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked–still smacks–of neocolonialist legerdemain. The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives–people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary–plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.
Wow, who said that? Some black-hearted neoconservative? Yeah, sure — that’s one way you could describe Joe Klein, I guess.
Now, it’s possible that Barack Obama does not share this view — but how many members of his administration, based on the hard-left crowd around him now as well as the militant black cadre that is part of his base, would disagree with these assertions?
(Mind you, the first person to fire that salvo was Pat Buchanan, who is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a Lefty, let alone a Democrat.) Furthermore, you will find few on the Left or on the Paleoconservative Right who are worried about Israel’s security prospects.
I agree, and Barack Obama is on the Left. Read the rest of this entry »














decency, of the Democratic politicians of my early youth — Lyndon Johnson, Roberty Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey. With McGovern, that ended.
I wish there were Republicans today who had a quarter of the qualities of Ronald Reagan. Here was a great man, one who never claimed for himself the mantle of a perfect or even particularly virtuous personal life; but he loved his country, knew right from wrong, and — exercising a quality that I admire for the very scold it places on one such as myself — his ability, now proved doubly and triply, to make everyone around him think he was a dumbbell when in fact he was sly as a fox. Frankly I think George W. Bush comes quite close to these qualities. But, sadly lacking the Gipper’s ability to communicate and being the literal heir to a political tradition of some ideological infirmity to a conservative — think Jim Baker, the man who made me vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 — he is not Reagan. Nor are today’s dizzy denizens of the Capitol statesmen, by and large. Were they ever? The past takes on an undeserved elegance in sepia. The crassness of living, live and unsilenceable color makes today’s professional political class seemingly harder to swallow than its predecessors — red or blue.


